Thought this covered it pretty well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2272405/

(10-27-2010 08:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Thought this covered it pretty well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2272405/

Well, just this one sentence throws away the Slate article for me:

Quote: Then on Election Day, they'd have to show their fake ID again and lie to a poll worker's face.

I guess they have no idea about the 9th circuit ruling on the Az law requiring ID to vote.....

Sorry, getting registered is astonishingly easy; the only "check" on the registration process is the signature under penalty or perjury in most most jurisdictions.

Once registered, the voting udner that "registered voter" is simply showing up and reciting your name to the election official.

Slate has it dead wrong. And they utterly fail to take in account the 9th circuit ruling that ixnays Arizona's law requiring ID to vote.

For these reasons, the Slate article comes across as tripe to me.

I think that anyone trying to play down the significance of voter fraud is probably expecting his or her side to benefit from whatever fraud does take place.

Just as anyone trying to overplay the significance of voter fraud is probably expecting the other side to benefit from whatever fraud takes place.

And you can always be sure of voter fraud allegations from anyone on either side of a very, very close election--particularly the losing side.

I don't think any of that gives fraud allegations any more or less credibility. Those are just predictable human behaviours. I am quite certain that some fraud takes place in every election--the rewards are too tempting not to, and the consequences of getting caught too small. Sure, a $1,000 fine seems like a lot--but not if whoever put me up to it agreed to reimburse any fines. I only hope that the decision of the non-fraudulent voters is sufficiently clear-cut that the fraud does not influence the outcome. I'm not sure that happened in Florida in 2000 or in Minnesota in 2008, among other places.

Well, it doesn't take fraud to put the outcome of exceptionally close elections in doubt. Our election systems have a margin of error, whether we like to admit it or not, and if the margin of victory is less than the margin of error...

Guess it's kind of like spotting the football under a pile of 10 men and then measuring down to the centimeter if it's a first down. Or determining whether a hanging chad is an actual vote or not.

However, I think there is little substance to the fear mongering that thousands of "illegals" or "minorities" are going to steal elections. At best a cynical attempt to question the legitimacy of the outcome and at worst an attempt to intimidate minority voters. And just to be clear, if there were people organizing to stand outside polling places to make sure "old white people with tri-corn hats and tea bags" aren't committing massive vote fraud, I'd be against that too. Just haven't seen it.

The easy way to get away with voter fraud is the "Mail Ballot'.. where you ask for a ballot and its mailed to the address on the registration, its then completed and mailed back in to the County Election Officials.

The "True the Vote" people found a 3 bedroom house in Houston that had 40 people registered as presently living at that address.

(10-27-2010 05:19 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  The easy way to get away with voter fraud is the "Mail Ballot'.. where you ask for a ballot and its mailed to the address on the registration, its then completed and mailed back in to the County Election Officials.

The "True the Vote" people found a 3 bedroom house in Houston that had 40 people registered as presently living at that address.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think there are enough real incentives for people to risk the fraud. I mean, 40 people is not going to steal an election. Besides the fact that I'm honest, I'm still never going to go out and try to vote twice, because it's honestly not going to make a difference, and it's a huge pain/risk.

I can see a few people with screws loose doing it, but for any measurable effect there would have to be a concerted, organized effort. And that is where the conspiracies come in. In the same way that I don't think the moon landings can possibly be fake because SOMEONE would talk, you would find someone bragging about this. Human nature. If there's no smoking gun evidence, I don't buy the conspiracy at all.

As to this house example - if it were student housing, you might just have a case of a bunch of kids getting registered at that address over recent years and never bothering to update. Nothing sinister needed.

The reactions here are pretty insightful, I think.

Those who favor the party that stands to gain votes from the fraud are minimizing and rationalizing it. Those who favor the party that stands to be hurt by the fraud are probably overplaying it. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. Just as it does on most issues.

(10-28-2010 08:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reactions here are pretty insightful, I think.

Those who favor the party that stands to gain votes from the fraud are minimizing and rationalizing it. Those who favor the party that stands to be hurt by the fraud are probably overplaying it. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. Just as it does on most issues.

For the record, I'm 100% against all voter fraud. I'm just questioning that it really is a problem in terms of actual voters voting multiple times or ineligible voters intentionally voting to swing elections. And the Bush admin's efforts to find said fraud back me up, as do the investigations into the Franken election. Lots of accusations, not a lot of evidence.

If fraud is going on, I think it's vastly more likely to happen with people who can literally or figuratively 'stuff the ballot box,' not by organized efforts to get 1000s of people to vote illegally.

That's why I'm skeptical of the "fraud police" calls to stand outside polling places. I don't know what this can do but disrupt the process. If, as WMD says, mail fraud is most likely/easiest, how will hanging out at the polling place actually help?

(10-27-2010 01:38 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2010 08:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Thought this covered it pretty well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2272405/

Well, just this one sentence throws away the Slate article for me:

Quote: Then on Election Day, they'd have to show their fake ID again and lie to a poll worker's face.

I guess they have no idea about the 9th circuit ruling on the Az law requiring ID to vote.....

Sorry, getting registered is astonishingly easy; the only "check" on the registration process is the signature under penalty or perjury in most most jurisdictions.

Once registered, the voting udner that "registered voter" is simply showing up and reciting your name to the election official.

Slate has it dead wrong. And they utterly fail to take in account the 9th circuit ruling that ixnays Arizona's law requiring ID to vote.

For these reasons, the Slate article comes across as tripe to me.

Is that decision affecting elections in other states which are currently ongoing? Actual question, I don't know.

Is your argument that there actually is voter fraud occurring in this election? If so, who is doing it, and what is your evidence? Again, just asking, in order to clarify your position.

If you are just concerned there are some weak spots in our election systems, I'm 100% in agreement, I just don't think this is main one.

(10-28-2010 08:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reactions here are pretty insightful, I think.

Those who favor the party that stands to gain votes from the fraud are minimizing and rationalizing it. Those who favor the party that stands to be hurt by the fraud are probably overplaying it. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. Just as it does on most issues.

You're saying it's a given that any fraud must benefit democrats. I don't think there's any reason to believe that is the case. Any of the methods discussed (invalid mail voting, voting multiple times, etc) could be achieved by a person of any political leaning. Incentives being equal (and I would wager, low), the effect is probably negligible and even likely to cancel out.

I'm not concerned about this AT ALL because it has no effect. I would be extremely upset to find out that a liberal candidate won because of fraud, just as I would in the opposite case. Quite honestly, it's insulting to be told one is morally ok with fraud because of political bias. No, I'm not.

Voting twice is simple to do if you can read upside down. When you go into the polling place and present your ID, they ask you to sign your name on the register. All you have to do is be able to memorize the name/address of another person (John Doe) on the sheet. Have a friend in a neighboring precinct do the same thing. After you both vote, swap information and head into the other precinct's voting location and claim you forgot your ID. I think in Texas they will give you a provisional ballot and let you vote. The only way you get caught is if the actual John Doe shows up later to cast his vote.

This method was explained to me by a 70+ y/o friend who is a big Rice fan. I'm not sure if it would actually work...but sounds like it might.

(10-28-2010 12:28 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  Voting twice is simple to do if you can read upside down. When you go into the polling place and present your ID, they ask you to sign your name on the register. All you have to do is be able to memorize the name/address of another person (John Doe) on the sheet. Have a friend in a neighboring precinct do the same thing. After you both vote, swap information and head into the other precinct's voting location and claim you forgot your ID. I think in Texas they will give you a provisional ballot and let you vote. The only way you get caught is if the actual John Doe shows up later to cast his vote.

This method was explained to me by a 70+ y/o friend who is a big Rice fan. I'm not sure if it would actually work...but sounds like it might.

It should generally work, if you describe how voting works in Texas. I'll go into more detail later, once I have some time, to actually describe some cases of probable fraud or attempted fraud that I have seen in the time I served as an election officer or precinct chief back in the 1990s. It's fairly easy to do, extremely difficult to prosecute (that's why I put very little credence in the prosecution numbers thrown out as being proof of how little it happens), and only recently with laws requiring official IDs to be shown (where the laws haven't been thrown out) and/or the computerization of rolls has it become even possible to start to reduce the opportunities for executing such frauds.

But I will back up Emmie (although I will note that I don't think Owl was trying to indicate that only Dems do it - he's extremely cynical on both parties - just observing on the positions each side is taking) and say that both parties are equal opportunity offenders.

(10-28-2010 12:59 PM)gsloth Wrote:  But I will back up Emmie (although I will note that I don't think Owl was trying to indicate that only Dems do it - he's extremely cynical on both parties - just observing on the positions each side is taking) and say that both parties are equal opportunity offenders.

I was in no way meaning to say that only dems do it. My point was more that it's funny how much the debate on the issue falls along partisan lines, varying from incident to incident depending on whose ox is being gored. This time it looks like the illegal voter registrations would heavily favor democrats, so it's republicans who are complaining and democrats who are pooh-poohing. I've seen things swing the other way when the allegations were against republicans, and both ways in situations like Florida 2000 or Minnesota 2008 where there were indications of it on both sideds. Maybe this is my cynicism showing.

I will take emmie at her word when she says that she would not want her favored candidate to win becuase of fraud, because emmie seems to be a reasonable and honorable person. If she became aware of voter fraud, I believe that she would take action to stop it, regardless of the beneficiary. I don't have that same trust and confidence in our political leaders of either party--particularly not those named Obama or Reid or Pelosi or McConnell or Boehner.

I generally agree with the statement above that the party that stands the most to lose make a bigger deal about it. I seem to recall that in 2008, voter fraud/intimidation was an issue for the Democrats with them set to take over the entire national government. This time it's the Republicans who seem to have the momentum, and from them you hear the allegations of irregularities.

At the end of the day, the real issue is one of limited vs. unlimited government. Right now we have an unlimited government - one that routinely violates individual rights, steals property, redistributes wealth, directs money to campaign contributors through government contracts, doles out political favors, etc. all in the name of "the greater good". If the government were constrained to its only legitimate function - the protection of individual liberty - it wouldn't matter who was in charge, and there would be no incentive to rig the elections.

(10-28-2010 03:01 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  I generally agree with the statement above that the party that stands the most to lose make a bigger deal about it. I seem to recall that in 2008, voter fraud/intimidation was an issue for the Democrats with them set to take over the entire national government. This time it's the Republicans who seem to have the momentum, and from them you hear the allegations of irregularities.
At the end of the day, the real issue is one of limited vs. unlimited government. Right now we have an unlimited government - one that routinely violates individual rights, steals property, redistributes wealth, directs money to campaign contributors through government contracts, doles out political favors, etc. all in the name of "the greater good". If the government were constrained to its only legitimate function - the protection of individual liberty - it wouldn't matter who was in charge, and there would be no incentive to rig the elections.

Agree 100%. Hence my cynicism.

Back about 1970, I was running payroll for a client, and noticed that about 40 people had the same SSN, and about 90 of them lived at the same address. Thinking that either the program had a bug or the data was corrupted, I called the client to explain that there was a problem. he explained to me that they hired lots of illegals, and the fake SSNs and address were no problem. That might be an explanation for the 40 people at one house in Houston. It certainly has no bearing on election fraud, as everybody knows illegals cannot vote except in a few cities.

I used to feel that the Electoral College system was outmoded and should be replaced with true national elections until I realized that it provided a firewall for electiion fraud. Massive fraud in, say, picking a place at random, Chicago, could only affect the electoral votes for Illinois, and therefore would not dilute my vote in Texas. Of course, that only applies to votes for Pres/VP.

(10-28-2010 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(10-27-2010 01:38 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(10-27-2010 08:15 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Thought this covered it pretty well.

http://www.slate.com/id/2272405/

Well, just this one sentence throws away the Slate article for me:

Quote: Then on Election Day, they'd have to show their fake ID again and lie to a poll worker's face.

I guess they have no idea about the 9th circuit ruling on the Az law requiring ID to vote.....

Sorry, getting registered is astonishingly easy; the only "check" on the registration process is the signature under penalty or perjury in most most jurisdictions.

Once registered, the voting udner that "registered voter" is simply showing up and reciting your name to the election official.

Slate has it dead wrong. And they utterly fail to take in account the 9th circuit ruling that ixnays Arizona's law requiring ID to vote.

For these reasons, the Slate article comes across as tripe to me.

Is that decision affecting elections in other states which are currently ongoing? Actual question, I don't know.

Well, it pretty much affects any state within the 9th circuit.

I know factually that in CA that no ID is required to vote.

Quote:Is your argument that there actually is voter fraud occurring in this election?

No, stating that the Slate piece is tripe. It is astoundingly easy to register scads of people to vote.

And "at the polling place" presentment of ID (in th 9th circuit) either: a) doesnt exist; or b) is made problematic by the ruling that one has to present ID to vote is improper.

The Slate piece ignores the factual grounding of its piece by claiming that it would be problematic to effectuate voter fraud by enforcement at polling places and/or registration methods.

Quote:If so, who is doing it, and what is your evidence? Again, just asking, in order to clarify your position.

My position is that I am unaware of actual fraud. I am aware that the Slate piece telling everyone that it is hard to do ignores some very basic facts.

Quote:If you are just concerned there are some weak spots in our election systems, I'm 100% in agreement, I just don't think this is main one.

So I will take it from that that you are wholly unconcerned with the stuff akin to that has been happening lately in Harris county lately.....

Personally, I see this election and the next as a life struggle for unions. SEIU and their ilk will do anything to perpetuate the teat from which they suck.

Having seen first hand the issues that Optimistic outlined previously, I think that Congressional, US Senate, and statewide elections could very easily be affected by a group (or groups) that could organize on this scale.

(10-28-2010 11:56 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(10-28-2010 08:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reactions here are pretty insightful, I think.

Those who favor the party that stands to gain votes from the fraud are minimizing and rationalizing it. Those who favor the party that stands to be hurt by the fraud are probably overplaying it. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two extremes. Just as it does on most issues.

You're saying it's a given that any fraud must benefit democrats. I don't think there's any reason to believe that is the case. Any of the methods discussed (invalid mail voting, voting multiple times, etc) could be achieved by a person of any political leaning. Incentives being equal (and I would wager, low), the effect is probably negligible and even likely to cancel out.

I'm not concerned about this AT ALL because it has no effect. I would be extremely upset to find out that a liberal candidate won because of fraud, just as I would in the opposite case. Quite honestly, it's insulting to be told one is morally ok with fraud because of political bias. No, I'm not.

emmie,

in order to effect this, one must have a "machine" (i.e. NY, Chicago...). There is a definite reason why these types of politics are called the "Chicago Way".

The people that could most easily perform this are ones that are organized already.

For that reason, you will never see CEOs pull this off (too few of them), or accountants (too disorganized), or any of a number of groups that traditionally make up the Republican party. The only means that a traditional Republican base member could pull this off would be through rigging of electronic means (as has been alleged for Ohio and the eVoting in 2004.)

On the other hand, unions and street organizers have the ability and touch to perform this. The fact that SEIU and ACORN are already joined at the hip (very incestuous relationship) gives these groups a fantastic ability to actually pull this type of action off.

And you would be correct to categorize me as believing that these groups would be more than willing to do this. Without going into details, having dealt in some matters with SEIU before, I would not hesitate at all to believe this.

My concern rests with the fact that the Harris County Voting Machines went "up in smoke" a few weeks ago.

As a result, Beverly Kaufman, Harris County Clerk, urged voters to use Early Voting and Absentee Ballots (including Mail Ballots) as much as possible to cut down on the expected long lines on Tuesday, because Harris County was only able to replace around 80% of the voting machines lost in the fire.

And then you had the SEIU linked organization "Houston Votes" that, as of August 16, 2010 submitted over 25,000 "new" voter applications to the Harris County Voter Registrar, but "oops" only 7,193 of these applications turned out to be valid-- with the rest (as of August 16)

1597- multiple applications for the same person

1014 -applications for persons already registered to vote

1113-applications where the applicant said they didn't have any ID when Texas databases showed these individuals had ID issued to them

1030 incomplete applications-- no address, date of birth, etc.

325 applications when the applicant said that they were under the age of 18

25 applications from applicants who weren't US citizens.

Someone please try to explain that to me. IMO that is an attempt to manipulate the Voter Rolls by trying to insert invalid voters into the system.

Sorry that isn't people residing in "student housing" IMO they were trying to overload/sneak something through the system that Harris County caught (at the taxpayer expense)

Tuesday may be a Zoo.

And if there are any issues, you will have people like the idiot that wore her Obama shirt into the polling station and then complained that her "Constitutional Rights" have been violated when they told her to turn her Tshirt inside out before she could vote.



The plain fact is that these "complainers" cant accept that come Wednesday morning their political agenda has been stopped dead in its tracks.

I can't wait until November 2012. "Humm.. Humm.. Humm"

Concerns grow about election fraud, voter intimidation

WASHINGTON — As if this election season weren't already tense enough, fears about voter fraud — and some of the steps that are being taken to combat it — have created more worries.

With control of Congress in the balance, both political parties are gearing up for a possibly wild and woolly Election Day around the country.

"Legal war rooms," roving teams of lawyers, hot lines and poll challengers are all part of the strategy that Democrats and Republicans will employ Tuesday to handle suspected fraud or to help voters whose right to vote is questioned.

The issue is also on the Justice Department's radar. It will post federal monitors at selected polling places around the country, and prosecutors, civil rights attorneys and the FBI will be tasked with handling election-related complaints that day. A special toll-free number — 1-800-253-3931 — will be available for complaints about ballot access.

A lot is just precautionary and not out of the ordinary. What's different this year is that candidates and others also are getting into the act.

Ed Martin, a Republican congressional hopeful in St. Louis, intends to deploy a "Count Every Vote Unit" to look for possible voter fraud.

Republican Rep. Mark Kirk, who's running for the Senate in Illinois, has a "voter integrity program" in place for Election Day.

Tea party groups plan to use "surveillance squads" at polling places to record possible voting misbehavior. Some tea party groups already have questioned voter registration records.

"This is happening to a degree we haven't seen in years," said Wendy Weiser, a voting rights expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. "The concern with ballot security operations is not with their intent. They can be highly confrontational. That can cross the line into intimidation and voter suppression."

Democrats claim that the fears about fraud are overblown and are being stoked by Republicans and conservatives to scare off voters, particularly minorities, many of whom tend to vote Democratic. In the Illinois U.S. Senate race, for instance, Kirk can be heard on a taped conference call saying where his "voter integrity program" would be sent, and it was largely African-American neighborhoods.

Republicans deny that they are raising false alarms about voter fraud and say that their concerns are legitimate.

"We have had some problem in the past with folks voting that should not have happened," said Lloyd Smith, the executive director of the Missouri Republican Party.

Among those was the famous case in 2000 of Ritzy Meckler — a dog — listed on the St. Louis voter registration rolls. Smith likened the party's preparations this year to "a speed limit on a highway. It's not there to write you a ticket, but to make sure everyone plays by the rules."

Some problems have occurred already.

During early voting In Texas, there were reports of poll watchers "hovering" over voters and "getting in their face," according to an account in the Houston Chronicle.

In Minnesota, a group composed of members of a conservative party and the tea party has offered a bounty of up to $500 for anyone who turns in someone who's successfully prosecuted for voter fraud.

"We've had everything from tornadoes and ice storms to other types of problems, such as voting challenges and polling place conduct," said Laura Egerdal, a spokeswoman for the Missouri Secretary of State's Office. "We hope we don't have to deal with any of those, but we're making plans.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/28/10...z13oAheFPM